Contents

Certain HBDers, "heriditarian," "biodiversity" types and/or libertarians often bemoan the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring businesses serving the public to not discriminate by race. Such a provision is a sad restriction of private liberty they argue, all engineered by evil "liberals." On a more prominent front, US legislator Rand Paul has on several occasions expressed various 'reservations' about equality in public accommodations, mandated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But here are 7 reasons why Rand Paul is wrong, and why such restrictions are not "bad" but rather commendable:

1) Private business have NEVER HAD the right to unfettered choice of who they served throughout much of US History. Government has always regulated said businesses, asserting larger public purposes over private business rights. Civil Rights for blacks is one such vitally important public purpose, going back over a century. This is nothing unusual or "liberal."

In fact it often makes excellent sense to curb the actions of private business owners. During the conquest of the West, government quite rightly and smartly, forbade unfettered sales of firearms to Indian tribes. It was just plain common sense to NOT have your troops faced with modern repeating rifles wielded by the hard-fighting Indian warriors. Most people with common sense have no problems at all with such "unjust" restrictions against private businesses. Private owners of liquor stores or bars for example do not have the unfettered right to sell liquor to whom they want. They cannot sell to minors for example in most states, again, for excellent reasons of public health and safety.

Owners of private gun shops cannot sell to any and sundry who walk thru the door. They do not sell to juvenile "gangstas" nor in most states can they sell to confirmed convicted violent felons. Today's vendors of pornography could boost sales to a vast and ready market among teenage males if they had the liberty, but are forbidden from openly selling their wares to these customers. In short, government has always regulated whom private business owners can serve in the name of greater public purpose. There never has been any unfettered "right" of private business owners to transact with whom they want, independent of higher public purposes in regulating whom they serve. Civil rights for blacks has a clearly documented, centuries old public purpose going back almost to the founding of the United States. This is quite unlike such recent frivolity by mostly whites invoking Title II "civil rights" protection for gays to get special privilege to march as such, in certain parades. It is this ever expanding frivolity that is a key problem, not the fundamental reasons noted above.

2) Because of segregation in dozens of different states, in thousands of different jurisdictions, a massive legal tangle of civil rights complaints, lawsuits and other unnecessary costs burdened both the business and legal system, crying out for clarity.The Civil Rights Act provided such long overdue clarity and clear legal standards achieved by legislative activity.

It is a fact that discriminatory action sparked legal action, not only from blacks seeking equal accommodation, but from non-Jim Crow businesses who wanted to trade freely with blacks. Jim Crow made it ILLEGAL for a white to do many things- from renting property, to serving customers in ways that could boost sales and enhance profits. The Montgomery Bus Company, of the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott actually originally tried to STOP racist local officials from imposing segregation. It failed as the dead hand of government once again hindered free markets (Sowell 2004).

Segregation, so often embraced by many "heriditarians" and HBDers as "good" and "necessary" was a hindrance to the much touted free markets, causing lost business and increased costs. Just the cost of duplicating and maintaining separate facilities - sometimes in the most absurd ways (like segregated water fountains or phone booths) - was hugely inefficient for the overall economy in numerous ways, even without explicit mandates requiring businesses to discriminate. One famous example is seen in the landmark 1899 Plessy vs Ferguson decision, that consigned blacks to dismal second-class Jim Crow status for over half a century. Ironically, the Louisiana street car company, (the East Louisiana Railroad) OPPOSED the imposition of race segregation on streetcars by the good white citizens of New Orleans, Louisiana. They opposed it not out of love for blacks, but the sheer inefficiency segregation caused on their operations, such as the need to procure additional cars for "colored" customers. In fact, the white corporation actually helped finance Plessy's lawsuit against the state, and even posted bail after the Negro was dragged off the streetcar and cast into jail. As is well known, Plessy's appeal to the US Supreme court failed, and the bogus "separate but equal" doctrine became the law of the land. "Colored" facilities, or white behavior applied towards blacks, were seldom 'equal' or even moderately close, even within the confines of the doctrine itself. As conservative writer Ron Christie notes: the Supreme Court decision "institutionalized a uniquely American brand of corruption and hypocrisy." (CHristie, 2010: 'Acting White", p. 42-51).

Jim Crow also created huge legal costs after the 1940s, because it sparked lawsuits, boycotts and other activity. This meant that continual discrimination, whether it was by interstate bus transport companies, railroads, big retail chains or 2-bit merchants was potentially and sometimes became a legal action - ranging from administrative complaints to government agencies, to lawsuits. These were sometimes supplemented by private action like boycotts, sit-ins or picketing. Court decisions in numerous cases (such as banning segregation in Interstate transport) were routinely ignored by state and local regimes. This created guge enforcement problems, with the federal government having the all but impossible task of investigating and bringing cases in each and every two-bit jurisdiction that violated the law. The tangle of different discriminatory state and local laws, customs and practices, creating a legal and administrative morass, at varying levels of intensity in numerous venues.

The Civil Rights Act created much needed consistency, clarity and uniformity, and removed one of the biggest items of headache and irritation- that of both government mandated discrimination imposed on businesses, and that of legal or extra-legal actions brought against discriminating private merchants.

Certain libertarians and assorted "heriditarians" claim to support "free markets" but sing a different tune when blacks seek to exercise their "free market" rights. They often lament the mandated equality in public accommodations, sniffing that those discriminated against should simply move on somewhere else. But in like manner, the same principle applies under the CRA to private businesses who want to continue to discriminate. They need no longer serve the general public as mandated by the CRA. All they have to do is simply convert to a clearly defined private membership, just as many social clubs do, and then they can discriminate to their hearts desire.

3. The anti-discrimination provisions of the Act benefited both whites and blacks and was good for business. Whites were now free to step up the sales of goods and services previously 'forbidden' by law. Blacks likewise were freer to pursue their free market choices. The common sense of both blacks and whites rejected esoteric racial hair-splitting, or "purist" freedom of association theories when there was business to be done and profits to be made. And it required no pious "changes of the heart" from white people. In short Title II was good for free markets. It had a multiplier effect in boosting other private market transactions to blacks by whites, without requiring any "changes of the heart" on the part of whites. Racists were still free to disparage blacks, and could form private clubs keeping out blacks around the clock, but they also had much more precedent and liberty to engage in a wider number of transactions with blacks. Title II set the tone for this new era. Since everyone was doing it, and had the cover of law now to do it, it made attempts at "noble" segregationist resistance (and violence) painfully irrelevant. The tone set by Title II provided cover for whites who simply wanted to make a little money. It is no accident that Title II is the section of the Civil Rights Act that was implemented most quickly and with relatively little fuss, compared to other sections such as school desegregation (Kennedy 2000).Title II did not require any "heart changes" as claimed by various opponents who piously lament the inability of government to effect such inward changes. Heart changes are indeed a difficult matter but they are also irrelevant. For example, a white clerk renting a hotel room to a black could now point to the spirit and letter of the law as cover in weathering criticism from other whites who objected. The clerk doesn't have to "like" black people. Blacks and whites transacting freely in the lunch counter market could care less about the other's "heart" or "feelings". What was/is relevant was the cash exchanged and the quantity and quality of food provided in return. "Feelings" are besides the point.

4. The Act provided indirect protection for blacks pursuing their right to make free market transactions with willing whites from the private violence of whites who objected. Essentially it set the tone, and served notice that free wheeling white violence would no longer be easy, or costless.

Another result of the new Title II tone was to make the private violence often used in enforcing private discrimination (physically forcing blacks into the "colored" locations or areas for example) both unnecessary and fraught with legal hassles and penalties. It is a fact that private discrimination in both the south and the north was often accompanied by private violence, violence that was often passed over by the legal authorities. Just ask blacks who engaged in a mutually satisfying free market transaction with a white to buy property in certain areas. In numerous cases pious white talk about "free markets" seemingly amounted to hypocrisy, more along the lines of "free markets for me, but not for thee." In 1957 in Levittown, for example, a mob of 400 screaming whites issuing death threats and throwing rocks confronted a black man, a WWII veteran and his 2 small children and wife. His "crime" was exercising his free market right to buy property where he desired, from another agreeable transactor- a white seller. In this case, the transaction was perfectly legal, without the racial restrictive covenants imposed elsewhere forbidding blacks from buying property in various areas, but this did not prevent the white mob from dispensing with "law and order" and seeking to stop the man from his free market transaction.

This scene was repeated in numerous venues across America, particularly in the south, but also outside the South where indeed white government often collaborated to cover up the violence of whites opposed to blacks exercising their free market choices. Such collaboration did not always have to be at the state/local level. At one time the federal mortgage agency refused to insure homes for blacks outside of certain 'reserved' areas, but had no problem insuring the homes of whites wherever they wanted to live. By outlawing discrimination by those selling goods and services based on race, the Act removed some of the incentive for white violence. Whites had no legal excuse to use violence in discriminating based on race. By also providing standing to sue by aggrieved parties, the Act "encouraged" state and local authorities to crack down on white violence or at least not actively collaborate.

When combined with stepped up enforcement by federal authorities (itself fostered by the legal standing conferred by the Act), it helped create a more stable, law-abiding environment for blacks to engage in "free market" commerce. Thus one finds southern law enforcement increasingly intervening to prevent racially motivated white mob or individual violence against blacks.

Assorted conservatives and libertarians often lament that federal intervention in race protections is something dreamed up in recent decades by "liberals." In fact, such intervention goes back over a century and at times operated in favor of southern slavery. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act for example provided for the appointment of a federal commissioner in every county of the nation to enforce it, and authorized federal marshals and, federal troops if necessary, to aid in the capture of fugitive slaves. The law created exclusive federal power to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause and placed the prestige of the national government behind the rendition of fugitive slaves.” (Kennedy 2000). When federal intervention and power was operating in their favor, white southerners and their apologists had no problem with it.

5. In addition, many intelligent whites also realized the negative effect Jim Crow had on America's standing in the world, particularly as the Soviets scored effective propaganda points against the United States on the race issue that undermined American credibility to talk about "democracy" overseas.

Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points by mocking American democracy as hypocritical, putting the US claim to "freedom", "democracy" and "justice" continually on the defensive internationally. There are several books on this and how removing the embarrassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, such as "Cold War Civil Rights" by Mary Dudziak (http://mdudziak.com/cwcr.aspx). And as noted above private violence was a not uncommon occurrence against blacks simply exercising their rights to free markets, violence that the Soviets took careful note of, as well as how American governments, at various levels, often passed over said violence, or actively collaborated in it. The Soviets also noted how various American jurisdictions moved to impose ludicrous and humiliating restrictions on blacks - such as forbidding them to share phone booths, water fountains, or even pet cemeteries with whites (presumably the dogs would object), and the powerlessness or lack of desire of federal authorities to address these abuses. Soviet propaganda in fact forged a powerful weapon that called into question the integrity of the entire American federal system, relying not on mere unsubstantiated rhetoric, but on actual, concrete, specific examples involving blacks in the USA. Such examples were also excellent foils to parry American criticisms of communist rule. Criticism of the thuggish rule of the commissars could be parried with counter-criticism of the rule of thuggish Jim Crow regimes and their helpers and/or racist compatriots in the north. These and other things like voting rights were the bread and butter of the skewering Soviet thrusts against American claims to democratic virtue.

By 1960, America statesmen could see the damaging effect that the inefficient and repugnant elements of segregation had on the country's international standing, and Cold War strategies, and they moved to correct this. As early as the Truman administration, the federal government was citing the Cold War imperative in its legal briefs to the US Supreme Court in support of anti-discrimination and desegregation cases. And in the late 1940s, the US government was repeatedly embarrassed internationally by petitions from groups like the NAACP's 1947 offering calling for "redress of human rights violations in the American South" (Klarman 1994). Malcolm X planned a similar petition and campaign drawing on the Third World and Non-Aligned movement shortly before his assassination. Klarman notes that even conservative Dwight Eisenhower invoked the need to counter damaging Soviet propaganda attacks as justification for sending troops to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower moved to reap maximum propaganda value for his decision by having what should have been a mere internal American matter translated into 43 languages for broadcasting around the world via the Voice of America.

Nor was this besmirching of US democracy merely confined to well-worn Kremlin propaganda organs. Concrete incidents of diplomatic embarrassment continually dogged the US in the 1960s, as the diplomats of Third World nations were repeatedly subjected to the indignities of public and private discrimination and disrespect. Indeed, in 1957, US President Eisenhower himself felt compelled to invite a minister of newly independent Ghana to 'breakfast at the White House to make amends for the refusal of a Howard Johnson restaurant in Delaware to serve him.' Nor was Eisenhower the only president of the "free world" to be embarrassed by segregation in the US. The Kennedy Administration, was likewise hit with numerous incidents involving African diplomatic officials. President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to such incidents. The US State Department even called on realtors in Washington D.C., to lighten up on their discriminatory practices in the nation's capital, which was creating ugly diplomatic situations when bemused non-white foreign diplomats and officials tried to do normal business in the erstwhile "leader of the Free World." Secretary of State Dean Rusk was to write: "the biggest single burden that we carry on our backs in our foreign relations in the 1960's is the problem of racial discrimination here at home." (Klarman 1994)

Assorted hereditarians and libertarians like Dinesh D'souza miss this history in their disparagement of the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act. It was not merely that millions of blacks were "inconvenienced" (as their laughable narrative on this score often goes), but the very reputation of the United States suffered tangible damage, at the very time a credible reputation and narrative was needed in dealing with a ruthless Cold War adversary. Civil Rights for African-Americans thus had much more at stake than abstractions about "unjust" restrictions on private transactors. In the face of serious international implications, civil rights legislation was an important response. It could also be said that said legislation was not solely out of the oft expressed "concern" for blacks proffered by self-congratulatory whites, but was also concerned with white America saving face overseas. Here is the experience of on black diplomat during the Kennedy Administration:

Early
in the Kennedy years a black delegate to the United Nations landed in
Miami on his way to New York. When the passengers disembarked for lunch,
the white passengers were taken to the airport restaurant; the black
delegate received a folding canvas stool in a corner of the hangar and a
sandwich wrapped with waxed paper. He then flew on to New York, where
our delegation asked for his vote on human rights issues. That same
ambassador later became his country’s prime minister. We learned later
that his chronic bitterness toward the United States stemmed from that
incident. - See more at:
http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/civil-rights-international-dimension#sthash.EA6KpHqd.dpuf

Early
in the Kennedy years a black delegate to the United Nations landed in
Miami on his way to New York. When the passengers disembarked for lunch,
the white passengers were taken to the airport restaurant; the black
delegate received a folding canvas stool in a corner of the hangar and a
sandwich wrapped with waxed paper. He then flew on to New York, where
our delegation asked for his vote on human rights issues. That same
ambassador later became his country’s prime minister. We learned later
that his chronic bitterness toward the United States stemmed from that
incident. - See more at:
http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/civil-rights-international-dimension#sthash.EA6KpHqd.dpuf

Early
in the Kennedy years a black delegate to the United Nations landed in
Miami on his way to New York. When the passengers disembarked for lunch,
the white passengers were taken to the airport restaurant; the black
delegate received a folding canvas stool in a corner of the hangar and a
sandwich wrapped with waxed paper. He then flew on to New York, where
our delegation asked for his vote on human rights issues. That same
ambassador later became his country’s prime minister. We learned later
that his chronic bitterness toward the United States stemmed from that
incident. - See more at:
http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/civil-rights-international-dimension#sthash.EA6KpHqd.dpuf

"Early in the Kennedy years a black delegate to the United Nations landed in Miami on his way to New York. When the passengers disembarked for lunch, the white passengers were taken to the airport restaurant; the black delegate received a folding canvas stool in a corner of the hangar and a sandwich wrapped with waxed paper. He then flew on to New York, where our delegation asked for his vote on human rights issues. That same ambassador later became his country’s prime minister. We learned later that his chronic bitterness toward the United States stemmed from that incident. This episode, recounted by Dean Rusk, the US Secretary of State from
1961 to 1969, graphically demonstrates that, by the 1960s, racial
discrimination in the USA could have important consequences for American
foreign policy."(
CIVIL RIGHTS -- THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION. By: Boxer, Andrew, History Review, 09629610, Sep2011, Issue 70

6. Contrary to the claims of certain conservatives and libertarians alleging how "liberals of the 1960s" "imposed" oppression on white people by banning private discrimination in public accommodations, restrictions on such discrimination by governments via courts, and restrictions based on the legislation of various states outside the South were ongoing decades BEFORE the Civil Rights act of 1964. The claim of unfettered freedom that was suddenly destroyed in the 1960s is a myth.

As early as 1875, the 1875 Civil Rights Act attempted to ban private discrimination in public accommodations. Later years were to see more success in banning state imposed discrimination in such accommodations via the Interstate Commerce Act. Such court action was not something conjured up by "liberal judges" in the 1960s. The 1875 act was a legislative action not a judicial one. As for the courts, as early as 1941, the Supreme Court held that such discrimination in which a colored man who had paid a first class fare for an interstate journey was compelled to leave that car and ride in a second class car was essentially unjust, and violated the Interstate Commerce Act. Similar rulings followed in 1946, throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. It is also a fact that protesters who "sat in" and were arrested even before passage of the Civil RIghts Act of 1964, in some cases, had this federal statutory or constitutional grounds for their actions.

This is one of the reasons why people like Attorney General Robert Kennedy could not simply dismiss rights activists as obscure nobodies in two-bit southern towns. Their complaints triggered legal processes that HAD to be dealt with at some level, particularly as urban black populations after WWII began to grow, ans as the Soviets scored powerful propaganda points against American democracy on the world stage. Such complaints were in fact, the subject of numerous legal actions and precedents PRIOR to 1964. Protesters at bus stations for example repeatedly had their local convictions voided by federal courts based in the Interstate Commerce Act that prohibited racial discrimination in interstate travel. In other cases courts voided trespass convictions because the "trespass" had been defined by local segregationist ordinance in defiance of federal precedents and laws established decades earlier. In many cases, the disciplined, well-behaved civil rights protesters won such favor from the federal courts, not simply because of the legal letter, but because their careful conduct demonstrated to judges that numerous local charges brought by Jim Crow authorities of "breaching the peace" were in fact bogus.

Furthermore, even before the CRA of 1964, numerous INDIVIDUAL STATES OUTSIDE THE SOUTH had their own laws against discriminatory local ordinances. In short, there was ample federal precedent for restricting discrimination in various public accommodations decades BEFORE the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and ample precedent among individual states (New York for example) of STATE action against such discrimination. While Courts held that private discrimination in public accommodations was still legal, the people spoke in favor of the CRA via legislative action, with more Republicans voting for it than Dems. The CRA cleared the ground finally by banning private discrimination in one uniform swoop. For this, it already had decades of case law and legislation behind it. This reality is contrary to the fantasy claims or some libertarians and conservatives about "liberals" who somehow manufactured these "oppressions" against white people out of thin air in the 1960s.

There are some who complain that the CRA laid the groundwork for more federal intervention in state affairs. True enough, but the trigger for that intervention was the racist practices that had humiliated blacks for decades. It is there the ultimate responsibility lies, downplayed as this might be by complainers. Furthermore federal intervention was a problem long BEFORE the CRA, as in the white-led and dominated liberal New Deal. That arguably set the wheels in motion more significantly than the CRA. The New Deal by the way was marked by much discrimination against blacks in its programs.

7. Of all the CRA provisions, Title II banning private discrimination has actually been one of the easiest implemented compared to others like Title VII. Implementation overall, outside a minority of rural die-hard areas was relatively smooth, and really caused no big fuss in white America. It is curious that certain libertarians, heriditarians, HBDers and others are lamenting this particular provision, which white America long ago quickly shrugged over and accepted. The fact that some heriditarian types are still lamenting that a black man two tables down is able to eat his hamburger in peace speaks volumes about their motivation and thinking today in the 21st century.

"Although Title II was probably the most talked about section of the Civil Rights Act, the section about which emotions ran highest, the section over which the most blood was spilled, it quickly faded in significance. It became, to paraphrase Hugh Davis Graham, a welcome casualty of success. As James W. Button (1998, 183) put it, Title II "clearly broadened and deepened the federal commitment to ending segregation in public accommodations. Compliance with the law in the South was relatively prompt and extensive, although acceptance in rural, Old South areas tended to be 'minimal and grudging.'"

The relative success of Title II is reflected to a large extent in the comparative simplicity, uniformity, and continuity of the case law built upon it. There arose no effective, concerted campaign of resistance like that which opposed the desegregation of public schooling, thereby prompting the courts and Congress to create new devices and doctrines for enforcement."

Hypocrisy of libertarians who benefit from the Civil Rights Act yet call for its repeal, and the tendency for unfettered private discriminators to reinforce their biases using public power.A number of libertarians and conservatives accuse assorted black leaders of hypocrisy- noting that said leaders call for color-blindness before the law, while simultaneously calling for color conscious race quotas. This is a telling criticism. But the charge of hypocrisy also crops up when some libertarians or conservatives call for a rollback of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is easy to speak breezily about "unneeded" legislation when you never had to live under constant harassment and stigma for over a century. Being white, like Rand Paul, or Asians considered "honorary whites", or being late-coming immigrants to American shores (like 1978 arrivee writer Dinesh D'souza) - said breezy speakers are free to posture and profit by a environment favorable to them. D'souza for example, arriving in 1978, was/is the beneficiary of over a century of civil rights struggle. In various works, such as "The End of Racism," he advances the notion that blacks make "too much" of race, and that Title II Civil Rights Legislation was "unnecessary." On page 544 of the book, he specifically calls for re-appeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finds discrimination in renting an apartment or hiring for a job acceptable, and would confine civil rights protections and enforcement only to things like voting or governmental activity. QUOTE: "Yet individuals and companies would be allowed to discriminate in private transactions such as renting an apartment or hiring for a job. Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." (The End of Racism, pg 544)

While D'souza on some counts makes cogent criticisms of liberalism and race mongering in his tome, his airy dismissal of civil rights legislation is seen as hypocritical by some observers, and relatively easy for him to do- he reaps the benefits while decrying the vehicle. The work of removing barriers was already done when D'souza arrived on US soil. He was free to board any public transportation and take any properly available seat, free to buy property in the neighborhood of his choice, free to check into any hotel, free to eat at any restaurant, free to send his kids to local schools (D'souza arrived after legal battles forced an end to school segregation in Arizona for example and was thus free to attend the school of his choice), and free to marry and take around his white wife, and enjoy all of the above with her, without official harassment or criminal charge due to race, or being denied the above benefits or continually harassed by private transactors because of his race. It is doubtful for example if he had to undergo the indignity of being turned away, frozen out, or denied service when he honeymooned with his wife, or took her to a restaurant, or tried to buy their first house. Aside from the fact that under earlier Arizona law, D'souza as a "Mongolian" could not have legally married his Caucasian wife, discriminatory practices by private transactors in restaurants, housing, public accomodations and other venues against non-whites were common in Arizona prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent years of enforcement. Perhaps as a self-styled "honorary white," reaping the protection of the very law he dismisses, Dsouza has the privilege of never having to worry.

It is also curious that D'souza, who married said white woman, faced the objections of her parents, who did not want the girl to marry an Indian. Dsouza says he was hurt, but like a true "honorary white," considers the objection to be "ethnocentrism" not "racism". Strange for a man who writes a book called "The End of Racism." But again, due to "unneeded" Civil Rights legislation, D'souza could get away with it, and build a comfortable life for his wife free of private harassment, persecution and significant discrimination, unlike interracial couples who faced jail sentences, and vicious legal and extra-legal harassment, including physical assault and murder. But hey, maybe what they faced was mere "ethnocentrism."
See:
http://articles.philly.com/1995-10-29/living/25695819_1_illiberal-education-racism-hindu

D'Souza also glosses over the fact that private discrimination (which he finds OK), often lays the basis for and/or intensifies public, government sanctioned discrimination. As the US Supreme Court noted in the Richmond school cases (a Virginia jurisdiction) - housing segregation, including restrictive covenants, "steering" by Real Estate agents, and biased "redlining" loan decisions by bankers, sometimes reinforced both de jure and de facto school segregation and vice versa. White voters acting through their state and local representatives at times resolutely backed this state of affairs, reinforcing private discrimination with the power of the state. Virginia's "Massive Resistance" campaign in the 1960s is one example if this- from massive bureaucratic requirements designed to block and discourage black children from enrolling in schools close to their homes, to mass school closures. Other, more subtle measures included zoning changes as a pretext designed to keep out certain groups. The rather naive 'libertarian' formula of privileged private discrimination ignores this pattern of public sector reinforcement. Discriminatory private transactors are voters and politicians as well, with numerous incentives to "rig the system" - to protect, consolidate and expand their private biases using public power, whether openly or under the guise of seemingly neutral activity. This basic pattern of human nature, left unchecked, would at times, promote or support the very public discrimination libertarians claim to oppose.

Equally naive is the libertarian notion that competition between discriminators would eliminate harmful effects. In SOME cases yes, but competition can be brisk with harmful still in place. There was competition between white merchants for black trade in various southern jurisdictions for example, but that did not prevent such merchants from continuing "Jim Crow" practices - white restaurants for example that would only let blacks take out food for example rather than be seated, even if blacks were frequent customers. Likewise in the ante-bellum south, competition forced white farmers to raise wages and improve working conditions for black laborers, but widespread cheating, deceptive contracts, debt peonage and thuggish private violence to keep laborers who dissented "in line" continued at a comfortable clip, and discriminatory laws against black laborers remained in place. At best, competition alleviates SOME difficulties. It is not the panacea advanced by some libertarians or conservatives.

Furthermore competition can co-exist quite comfortably with collusion, and indeed may or may not have much effect on that collusion. Collusion and collaboration between discriminators need not be 100% effective to produce deleterious effects on targeted minorities. Collusion between realtors, landlords and bankers for example (supplemented by private white violence in some cases), was never and could never be 100% effective in keeping blacks out, but it was effective in enough areas to foster some segregated neighborhoods, over and above, or in parallel with the influence of other factors. This in turn set up perpetuation through public sector levers- sometimes open, and sometimes veiled like zoning controls, or onerous "school choice" plans that were actually designed to discourage "choice" where targeted minorities were involved. Likewise collusion between white unions was never and could never be 100% effective in all the skilled trades everywhere, but it was effective enough in locking blacks out of numerous skilled occupations, including some that blacks had performed effectively in for decades, such as the railroads, before the triumph of said white collusion. This in turn set up consolidation and reinforcement via public-sector levers of power- state licensing boards or cumbersome bureaucratic regulations that had the happy effect of reducing the presence of targeted minorities, and protecting the position and incomes of white incumbents, The clear-eyed conservative writer, Walter Williams, is an exception to libertarian naivete, detailing such reinforcing effects in his classic The State Against Blacks. (1980).

D'Souza's personal background is relevant because he himself references it on several occasions- implying special insight, as in his 1991 book "Illiberal Education" and in appearances on media shoes such as the MacNeil/Lehrer NEwshour (June 18, 1991) where he specifically points to his Indian background and insinuates how it gives him some sort of special insight into America's racial situation. See page 22- Illiberal Education, where he talks about being from India and how he got involved due to his background in this heterogeneous society. On the MacNeil/Lehrer appearance he opines that America is becoming a multiracial society and the whole issue is "transcending black and white" again implying that he has some sort of special insight because of this "diverse" background - the straight-talking minority guy who says things others dare not say. A self-flattering picture indeed, but one that raises its own questions.

In 1996's "The End of Racism" he condemns high levels of black employment in government as "parasitical", saying nary a word about high levels among whites, like white southerners, or groups like the white Irish, who fed and feed extensively from the government trough, and indeed used their control of municipal governments to discriminate against other groups. But only blacks are dismissively singled out by D'souza on this score. Predictably, he also does not mention the high levels of government employment in his own native India, nor the high levels of government employment among white women, like his wife Dixie. It is only blacks who are targeted as the "parasites" never whites, and certainly not white women like his wife. The fact that this self-styled observer with supposed special insight on "diversity" would roll back key provisions (equal treatment from all serving the public) of this critical legislation, provisions in public accommodation that even conservative Republican presidents said needed to be fixed to improve America's overseas standing and to affirm America's commitment to equality for all, and from which he himself and his wife have benefited, testifies to immigrant D'souza's hypocrisy and lack of understanding of some of the deepest threads of America's racial history.

It is also ironic that D'souza and his white wife Dixie, have spent many years living comfortably in the aforementioned Virginia, a state that in the past, had imprisoned and/or exiled people for interracial marriages. Dsouza's marriage itself would have been illegal in Virginia in 1969. It was only until "unneeded" civil rights laws and court decisions were applied to that very state, and nationwide, that interracial couples could live in peace, and not be arrested and jailed in the middle of the night like Mildred Loving and her husband Richard of Loving case landmark fame. Presumably, D'souza would have no problem if he and Dixie were denied housing in the area of their choice by Realtors or private sellers, or had their children shunted to the "colored" schools as part of the indirect or de facto fallout of that private discrimination. He would only object to dreaded public-sector action, like a midnight invasion by government police rousting he and Dixie out of bed in search of interracial "criminals." To paraphrase James Baldwin, life is good in America, when you or your ancestors have never had to pay racism's and/or Jim Crow's "price of the ticket.".

Update: In 2012, D'souza, a conservative who oft railed against "irresponsible" blacks, was himself caught out in gross immorality and irresponsibility. He dumped white wife Dixie for a tighter, more attractive younger brown-skin, but while still married, took his younger paramour to an Christian evangelical conference, misrepresenting her as his fiancee to at least three people, and sharing a hotel room with her at the conservative evangelical gathering - all the while he postures as a model of conservative morality. Such hypocrisy is sad, because on some points- D'souza's strong defenses against atheism, trendy pablum and political correctness are reasonable.

Ironically, under his dismissal of the Civil Rights Act's protections, D'souza and his non-white mistress would have been denied admission to the South Carolina hotel room they shared at the evangelical conference, just as he would have been denied said room, if he had showed up with his white wife Dixie before 1964, or before 1969 if in Virginia. ( http://www.inquisitr.com/366921/evangelical-dinesh-dsouza-man-behind-obamas-america-caught-out-in-hotel-with-alleged-mistress/ ) Once, twice, D'souza has his women, and his cake, and gets to eat it too, benefiting from the very same civil rights protections, he so breezily dismisses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A supplementary argument is sometimes made that some of the civil rights campaigns for public accommodations in King's time accomplished limited gains practically on the ground after much bloodshed and turmoil, hence the Civil Rights Act's provisions were "unneeded." But this speaks primarily to faulty TACTICS meant to publicize the need for reforms, not whether the civil rights reform was fundamentally bad or good in itself. And publicity garnered by civil rights agitation did attract federal attention and protection, especially in a Cold War environment where international critics mocked American claims to democracy. And the mobilization of blacks would pay political, socia and economic dividends in the years to come.

Detractors charged that the sit-in campaigns in some cities for example, after much turmoil and some deaths merely succeeded in desegregating a few lunch counters and some public facilities in a few cities. In his bio Malcolm X criticizes such minimal outcomes- saying something like “All this just to eat a hot dog next to the white man?” Likewise the famous Birmingham campaign saw hundreds jailed, several killed and four little black girls murdered by a bomb. At the end, a committee was established to desegregate lunch counters, fitting rooms and water fountains, and one or two blacks were hired for minor positions with the city. The city overturned some minor Jim Crow ordinances and allowed parks and golf courses to serve blacks and whites. Some of the lunch counters in the city complied, others did not, Mayor Boutwell appointed a biracial committee to "study" further changes. Malcolm X was particularly scornful of such meager results after all the deaths and sacrifice, particularly for the Children's Crusade that put black kids in harm's way, for such minimal payoffs. The Black Power Movement's rise also reflects some of this dissatisfaction, including irritation at seeming "stage management" of the Civil Rights Movement by the white power structure.

These critiques are not new and were made by many blacks against King, SNCC, and other direct action proponents at the time. They are not the product of "revisionists" in the 2000s. It could also be argued that the sit-ins and demonstrations gained very little traction overall, from both the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations. Indeed the Kennedys somewhat collaborated with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in a campaign of harassment and wiretaps against King (Branch 2006). Said J. Edgar Hoover initially rose to prominence in this area with his campaign against one Marcus Garvey in the 1920s. Arguably, it was more the assassination of Kennedy, the subsequent atmosphere, the ambition of LBJ to "make his mark", and searing Soviet rhetorical attacks on the international stage that produced civil rights gains as regards public accommodations, more so than assorted sit-ins and demonstrations, this argument goes.

Furthermore as Mary Dudziak in Cold War Civil Rights shows, these presidents and the US foreign policy establishment were continually irritated and put on the defensive by stinging Soviet propaganda on US race relations before the major sit-in era of the early 1960s, and before the rise to prominence of King. The Soviet propaganda effort for example was well in place under the Truman administration in the late 1940s. The Soviets carefully noted that civil rights bills were attempted through the Congress several times in the years prior to the King era, but were usually defeated by southern opposition.

Hence this critique goes, the sit-in and demonstration movement in terms of public accommodations, arguably had, at best, after much sound and fury, a moderate impact overall in a trend that was already building and moving towards legislative action in Civil Rights. Protests and demonstrations, according to this argument, are lionized today, their leaders encrusted in hagiography, but the actual impact of their works may be less than advertised in the popular imagination. Furthermore there was much criticism of King and the SCLC that they too often swept in with press and celebrity entourage to hog the headlines for a time, and then departed after the headline events, leaving local people in the lurch. Here is what King's respected Pulitzer biographer Garrow (1986) has to say about conditions after the headling-gripping events of the Selma campaign:"Most of the questions he [King] faced upon return to Atlanta concerned the muddled Alabama operation. James Bevel insisted that the boycott be pursued at full tilt and that a new round of demonstrations be mounted in the Black Belt. Many staffers were losing interest in the boycott plan , and local black leaders reported bluntly that their troops had little enthusiasm for new protests. Selma's activists were angry about what they regarded as SCLC's withdrawal from their community. Locally, divisions had arisen over both the unproductive discussions with city officials and the poorly administered distribution of essential supplies that SCLC had sent to Selma to aid the scores of black citizens fired from their jobs for participating in the demonstrations. Many local people who had sacrificed greatly for the movement could see no improvements resulting from the protests, and Randolph Blackwell, dispatched from Atlanta to see if black Selma's morale could be improved, reported to King that his offer to send a new SCLC staffer into town to assist the leaders there was met with "something less than enthusiasm."
--David Garrow. 1986. Bearing the Cross

Defenders of the Civil Rights Movement however argue that one of its key tactics was precisely to provoke international criticism of the US Government to move faster, and that if the matter had been left to repressive local Jim Crow regimes in the south, basic human and civil rights might never have been achieved for African Americans. The fact is that what seemed like "small potatoes" local victories were parlayed into nationwide victories. The crisis generated by local confrontations in Birmingham, Selma and elsewhere carried national and international weight and as urged and hoped for by leaders, during and after such confrontations the US federal government acted and at times was provoked to act, partially defeating state and local Jim Crow regimes. In addition, the substantial bravery and sacrifice of many demonstrators cannot be doubted. Indeed as movement veteran Bob Moses noted- one huge result is that blacks stomped down under the boot of American apartheid, "stood up" and were no longer afraid. This in time translated into black political and social progress, a bigger result than the debates of distant media or educational elites, who were not there on he actual ground, and could not comprehend what a sea change that meant.

In short, even if there were the tactical weaknesses noted above, there was sound precedent, and sound practical, legal and foreign policy reasons for the removal of the daily indignities of discrimination by the CRA. A case can certainly be made that some sit-in campaigns were faulty, or that the CRA was later hijacked into things very far away, and a stretch from its original purpose - such as legal actions for a "constitutional right" of various white gays to march in certain private parades. But that is wholly different from saying the Civil Rights Act was not needed to address the glaring injustice of public accommodations in American life, injustices that were constantly and effectively exploited in propaganda battles with America's overseas enemies. Whatever the length, bitterness and hypocrisy involved in the process, ultimately, America got it right by ensuring such equal treatment for its citizens across the board.

-- (c) Enrique Cardova, 2010.
Free to copy or reproduce if link back to original page is provided.